Freethought & Rationalism Archive

CJD · 12-09-2005, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Why Christian doctrine added these elements is what is really puzzling.

One reason is, incidentally, one that you reject a priori: the possibility that the descriptions of Jesus and his brief ministry, coupled with that of his apostles', occurred in the manner they were described in the pertinent literature.

CJD

John A. Broussard · 12-09-2005, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJD

One reason is, incidentally, one that you reject a priori: the possibility that the descriptions of Jesus and his brief ministry, coupled with that of his apostles', occurred in the manner they were described in the pertinent literature.

Would you please expand on this?

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. I'm especially puzzled by what you are referring to when you say, "pertinent literature."

Thanks.

CJD · 12-09-2005, 11:33 AM

One possible reason that the early Christians said the things about Jesus that they said was because (and this is what I assume you don't, or won't, entertain the possibility of) what was written about him and his apostles in the early Christian literature actually did occur.

Maybe you are asking why later apologists say nos. 1–3 in your OP can be found in the TNK. I don't know that they are. I think they are getting nos. 1–3 from the writings of the NT.

John A. Broussard · 12-09-2005, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJD

One possible reason that the early Christians said the things about Jesus that they said was because (and this is what I assume you don't, or won't, entertain the possibility of) what was written about him and his apostles in the early Christian literature actually did occur.

Maybe you are asking why later apologists say nos. 1–3 in your OP can be found in the TNK. I don't know that they are. I think they are getting nos. 1–3 from the writings of the NT.

I am sure that most of the early Christians believed that 1-3 occurred. I've never questioned that.

My question is why, if they believed that Christ was the Messiah prophesied in the OT (born of a virgin in Bethlehem, descended from David etc.), and found it necessary to point this out over and over again ,that they didn't explain why the far more important points 1-3 were never mentioned in the OT)

After all, points 1-3 are the very core of Christianity. How come they were never mentioned in the OT as being essentials feature of the Messiah?

Chili · 12-09-2005, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas II

Ok...This is my opinion...

7.Eucharist: bread (the intellect), blood (the cosmic vitality,the Life). It is about their unification. It is about becoming the Universal man. It's about "I and the Father are One".

6. Mary...Mary is about "Not my will but thy will be done"...
"My will" would be "the will of Ego"
"Thy will" is the Universal will of Life.

But...surrendering to the will of the Church IS NOT surrendering to the will of Life...
LIFE was there long before there was a Roman Catholic Church institution, and it will be there long after the institution of the Roman Catholic Church is no more...
The Church is too attached to itself, to its ego, just like if it were an individual...and as an institution it can not ascend unless it sheds that ego...When it becomes as "Mary", THEN,and only then, can they and the Father be One..."Were I'm going you can not go...(yet)"

There is nothing wrong with your opinion . . . except that you are looking at the Church Militant that must move the people while Mary is the Church Triumphant where the wisdom is found to direct this movement.

The "Father and I are one" long before this and even long before Resurrection (at # 1) but, you are right, not yet in harmony with each other until after Resurrection (notice here that Father is conscious and I is subconscious (sic) which is why "the child becomes the father of man" with the child being the favorite apostle who was born from the netherworld = water = Mary + Magdalene under the care of John the favorite.)

The Universal man is the Freeman, indeed, but he will know the Deterministic cause of the Universe and therefore is the only one who can suspend all judgment and share bread and wine = intellect and wisdom. Note that if life (intellect) is an illusion and eternal life (wisdom) is real, life can be reduced to knowledge wherefore Mary is crowned Queen of heaven and earth.

The Church Militant is the congregation of sinners for sinners out of whom the elect are called. Notice that the is no temple in the New Jerusalem which would be our Church Triumphant.

Chili · 12-09-2005, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJD

One possible reason that the early Christians said the things about Jesus that they said was because (and this is what I assume you don't, or won't, entertain the possibility of) what was written about him and his apostles in the early Christian literature actually did occur.

Maybe you are asking why later apologists say nos. 1–3 in your OP can be found in the TNK. I don't know that they are. I think they are getting nos. 1–3 from the writings of the NT.

It is an archetypal reality which is why Paul could write about it and is also why "it testifies on my behalf." Jn.5:39-40 reads "you search the scriptures wherein you think you have eternal life; they testify on my behalf."

The argument here is that if the historical Jesus can be 'tracked down' and 'nailed down' the metaphor loses its value. "He left and will return" to show us the way and no more. This makes "the way" the end of our journey and not the historical account of literature.

The Whiffle Man · 12-09-2005, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJD

This bears upon our previous discussion, John, where I whined about how, generally speaking, the prophetic literature and the NT authors' use of it is misunderstood both by apologists and by a great many skeptics (who are naturally all-too-willing to point out the inconsistencies).

CJD

My questions to you, as somebody who is interested in researching the question of whether or Jesus is the messiah are:

1) How does one make a connection between Jesus and the Old Testament if he is not a direct fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies?

2) More directly - do you consider to be Jesus the Messiah? Would you present him that way to Jews?

Kevin

CJD · 12-10-2005, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

I am sure that most of the early Christians believed that 1-3 occurred. I've never questioned that.

My question is why, if they believed that Christ was the Messiah prophesied in the OT (born of a virgin in Bethlehem, descended from David etc.), and found it necessary to point this out over and over again ,that they didn't explain why the far more important points 1-3 were never mentioned in the OT)

After all, points 1-3 are the very core of Christianity. How come they were never mentioned in the OT as being essentials feature of the Messiah?

Again, this goes to the core on how to read the prophetic literature (including the historical and poetry books). None of it was read as a black-and-white checklist. Still, Jesus is largely rejected by his fellow countrymen for some reason, but it's not because he doesn't "fulfill" some kind of messianic checklist; it's because the warring Davidic king aspect was emphasized to the detriment of the suffering servant aspect. In short, they didn't like Jesus because because they didn't like his kingdom ethic — self-sacrifice, not blood and guts and violence.

That said, my first post, I think, shows how, if nos. 1–3 actually did occur, the NT writers thought Jesus "fulfilled" the TNK, the great story of God's people. Get out of your head the notion that the early Jewish Christians considered the Hebrew scriptures as parts separate from the whole — in other words, see that they considered the whole of the TNK as the grand, sweeping narrative of God's redemptive plan to turn the world right side up again — and you may have found the answer to your own question: in Jesus, all that came before has been reached its goal.

1. This is why Jesus was considered the "first fruits" of the great resurrection to come. A resurrection was certainly expected, and it so happened that the messiah led the way in this (by suffering, dying, and then being vindicated by God by being raised).

2. First-century Jews also expected the messiah's coming to be followed by a coronation. Hence the ascension. Again, the problem for most Jews, apparently, was that this stuff was happening in ways not welcomed, or at least unexpected, by the majority.

I think I explained #3 sufficiently in my first post.

Best,

CJD

CJD · 12-10-2005, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Whiffle Man

1) How does one make a connection between Jesus and the Old Testament if he is not a direct fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies?

My point is that prophecies don't require "direct" fulfillments in the sense you may think. Conditions, either explicit or implicit, were contained in every utterance. The connection between the person Jesus and the TNK, I think, is to be understood in the way I describe in my previous post (about fulfilling the grand story of God's redemptive plan to turn the world right side up again).

Quote:

2) More directly - do you consider to be Jesus the Messiah? Would you present him that way to Jews?

Yes. I would present it the way I have tried to do in this thread, BUT I would not assume the upper hand. I know I'm the one that seems to be stretching things …

Best,

CJD

dbarmstrong · 12-10-2005, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJD

Neither the early Christians, nor Jesus himself, considered his life (and death and resurrection) to be a black-and-white, one-for-one fulfillment of a few distant and obscure prophetic utterances. Think about how absurd that sounds. We have this guy walking around, thinking, "Well, now I've got to go here and do this, in order to 'fulfill' this …." No, that's not how it worked, nor is it how Jesus' life, etc., was viewed by his early followers (Paul included).

When some aspect or another of Jesus' entire life and death and resurrection is said to have been done "so that the scriptures would be fulfilled," the idea is not that this or that particular instance complies exactly with some ancient word spoken by a prophet; the idea is that the entirety of the scriptures, the story or narrative of Israel, has been summed up, explained, reached its goal, in Messiah Jesus. This bears upon our previous discussion, John, where I whined about how, generally speaking, the prophetic literature and the NT authors' use of it is misunderstood both by apologists and by a great many skeptics (who are naturally all-too-willing to point out the inconsistencies).

Given this preface, there is no need to search the TNK for allusions to the three points you raised above. We can, however, say a few things:

1. First-century Jews (the Saducees apparently being in the minority) did seem to expect a future resurrection of the dead. This resurrection, after the Davidic king would inaugurate YHWH's kingdom on earth, is the kingdom-life promised to the people of God. It would include the entire world (geographically and humanly speaking).

2. I doubt anyone expected the very person they believed to be the Messiah to leave them, yet the promise was that in the last days the Spirit of YHWH would be poured out upon his people. The early Christians' saw Jesus' leaving as somehow a part of (enabling?) that promise.

3. Most Jews expected a fully human war hero, not a theanthropos. Incidentally, the early Christians didn't conceive of Jesus as the son of God because of any distant, obscure prophecy, but because Jesus did what YHWH always said he would do. Thus, their will and purpose was the same, and God proved it when he resurrected him from the dead; therefore, this guy Jesus was not a regular Joe.

The amount of actual research it would take for most folks to get on track when it comes to reading the prophetic literature and the NT in its context is daunting, and I don't blame you for not plunging in.

CJD

It was the Pharissees who believed in the resurrection that is why you see more interaction between Jesus and thsi group rather than the Saduccees

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-09-2005, 11:33 AM	#13
CJD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: greater Orlando area Posts: 832	One possible reason that the early Christians said the things about Jesus that they said was because (and this is what I assume you don't, or won't, entertain the possibility of) what was written about him and his apostles in the early Christian literature actually did occur. Maybe you are asking why later apologists say nos. 1–3 in your OP can be found in the TNK. I don't know that they are. I think they are getting nos. 1–3 from the writings of the NT.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.